Jump to content
When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission.

lionsandtigers

Member
  • Posts

    1,292
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Posts posted by lionsandtigers

  1. Still. There are plenty of dealers who are not experts. I am not an expert, at least not on the 1675, but I have owned 2 gen 1675's and a few subs/datejusts and I have built and studied enough to know when something is wrong. That watch is wrong. No 2 ways about it. Mish mosh franken, whatever. It aint gen, and that case aint gen, period. Looks like a yuki case.

  2. I could be wrong as well but there are a few things that are bothering me.

    First, I find it hard to believe that it's an original case. The cgs look like they just came out of the mold. I have NEVER seen crown guards that perfect on a 40+ year old watch. Especially if they've been polished which if that case IS gen, then it would have had to be by the cleanliness of it.

    Secondly, the rehaut is a little to tall for a 1675 and is missing the lip, or at least it's undetectable from the photos, where the crystal meets it at the opening. From the look of the photos, it runs up right to the crystal which is incorrect.

    Third, the coronet and the rolex printing on the dial. I have seen a lot of variations of this as many of you have. And I am not saying it's wrong because I am not an expert on this model, but the letter spacing is jacked and I cannot find an example of the crown on any 68 gmt. Look at the ono in chronometer. The letters are mashed together. And the of f in officially.

    Look at the dial you posted on the example above and compare it to the one we're discussing. C'monnnnnn. Rolex has done a lot of weird things, especially back in the 60s and 70s but their QC has always been impeccable.

    I have an extremely hard time believing this watch is gen. MAYBE a Franken but to me, nothing there is gen.

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

×
×
  • Create New...
Please Sign In or Sign Up